A Preferred Vendor Model Reduces the Costs of Sports Medicine Surgery.

PURPOSE: To report on our institution's first year of experience with a preferred vendor program for implants and disposables for sports medicine surgery. METHODS: Cost and utilization data for implants and disposables were analyzed for knee and shoulder sports medicine surgeries performed during the 2-year period including the 12 months preceding the start of the contract (contract year 0 [CY0] and the first 12 months of the contract period (CY1). The costs of grafts and biological therapies were excluded. Utilization of the preferred vendor's products, operative time, and per-case costs were compared between the 2 time periods and adjusted for patient factors and case mix. RESULTS: Utilization of the preferred vendor's shavers (0% to 94%, P < .001) and radiofrequency ablation wands (0% to 91%, P < .001) increased significantly in CY1 (n = 5,068 cases) compared with CY0 (n = 5,409 cases), with a small but significant increase in use of the preferred vendor's implants (64% to 67%, P = .023). There was no significant difference in mean operative time between CY0 and CY1 (P = .485). Mean total per-case implant and disposable costs decreased by 12% (P < .001) in CY1 versus CY0. CONCLUSION: Our institution was able to reduce the costs of sports medicine surgery with the implementation of a preferred single-vendor program for implants and disposables. This program had widespread surgeon adoption and did not have any detrimental effect on operating room efficiency. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative study.

Preferred Single-Vendor Program for Total Joint Arthroplasty Implants: Surgeon Adoption, Outcomes, and Cost Savings.

BACKGROUND: In total joint arthroplasty, variation in implant use can be driven by vendor relationships, surgeon preference, and technological advancements. Our institution developed a preferred single-vendor program for primary hip and knee arthroplasty. We hypothesized that this initiative would decrease implant costs without compromising performance on quality metrics. METHODS: The utilization of implants from the preferred vendor was evaluated for the first 12 months of the contract (September 1, 2017, to August 31, 2018; n = 4,246 cases) compared with the prior year (September 1, 2016, to August 31, 2017; n = 3,586 cases). Per-case implant costs were compared using means and independent-samples t tests. Performance on quality metrics, including 30-day readmission, 30-day surgical site infection (SSI), and length of stay (LOS), was compared using multivariable-adjusted regression models. RESULTS: The utilization of implants from the preferred vendor increased from 50% to 69% (p < 0.001), with greater use of knee implants than hip implants from the preferred vendor, although significant growth was seen for both (from 62% to 81% for knee, p < 0.001; and from 38% to 58% for hip, p < 0.001). Adoption of the preferred-vendor initiative was greatest among low-volume surgeons (from 22% to 87%; p < 0.001) and lowest among very high-volume surgeons (from 61% to 62%; p = 0.573). For cases in which implants from the preferred vendor were utilized, the mean cost per case decreased by 23% in the program's first year (p < 0.001), with an associated 11% decrease in the standard deviation. Among all cases, there were no significant changes with respect to 30-day readmission (p = 0.449) or SSI (p = 0.059), while mean LOS decreased in the program's first year (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The creation of a preferred single-vendor model for hip and knee arthroplasty implants led to significant cost savings and decreased cost variability within the program's first year. Higher-volume surgeons were less likely to modify their implant choice than were lower-volume surgeons. Despite the potential learning curve associated with changes in surgical implants, there was no difference in short-term quality metrics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Monitoring and Developing a Volunteer Patient Navigation Intervention to Improve Mammography Compliance in a Safety Net Hospital.

PURPOSE: Although mammography screening is crucial for cancer detection, screening rates have been declining, particularly in patients of low socioeconomic status and minorities. We sought to evaluate and improve the compliance rates at our safety net hospital through a prospective randomized controlled trial of a volunteer-run patient navigation intervention. METHODS: Baseline 90-day institutional mammography compliance rates were evaluated for patients who received a physician order for screening mammograms over a 1-month period. This analysis aided in the creation of a prospective randomized controlled trial of a volunteer-run patient navigation intervention to improve compliance, with 49 total participants. The primary outcome was 14-day mammography compliance rates. Secondary analysis examined the efficacy of the intervention with respect to patient demographics, prior mammography compliance, family history of cancer, beliefs on mammography, and past medical history. RESULTS: Analysis of baseline institutional compliance revealed a 47.87% compliance rate, with the majority of compliance occurring within 14 days of order placement. The patient navigation intervention significantly improved compliance by 34% (42% in the control group, 76% in the intervention group). Additional findings included significantly improved compliance in patients who believed they had a low susceptibility to cancer, those who understood the benefits of mammography and early diagnosis, those who had a prior mammogram, those who were employed, and those with a family history of cancer. CONCLUSION: A system to monitor compliance and intervene using patient navigation significantly improved mammography compliance of patients in a safety net hospital. The relatively straightforward design of this volunteer-based intervention makes it affordable, easily replicable, and perhaps beneficial at other institutions.